Rebecca MacKinnon's postings about work, reading, and ideas from 2004-2011.

May 14, 2009

There's been a global argument going on for some time now over how the Internet should be governed. Many governments, including China but also many others, are not happy that the "root" of the Internet is controlled by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), which ultimately answers to the U.S. Department of Commerce. In 2005, there were proposals from various countries to move Internet governance from ICANN to a United Nations body of some kind, or something that would give more representation and power to a variety of governments. But there was no consensus. Human rights groups were rightly concerned that giving governments like China and Iran greater say in Internet governance would lead to more censorship and the elimination of privacy and anonymity. At the 2005 World Summit on the Information Society in Tunisia, local dissidents got roughed up, a workshop on free expression nearly got shut down by the host government, and governments agreed to stick with the ICANN-led status quo for lack of any reasonable consensus. The Internet Governance Forum was formed as a platform to continue consultation and feedback from governments and a range of "civil society" groups, including coalitions calling for the protection of human rights and free speech.

At an IGF preparatory meeting in Geneva on Wednesday, China called for a disbandment of the IGF, on the grounds that it's useless. The full transcript of the proceeding his here. An archive of the webcast is here. Below are China's two statements in full. I've bolded some of the key parts. Note the discussion of Internet censorship at the end:

CHINA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On behalf of the delegation of China, I would like to present the position of the government of China on the fourth session of the IGF.

First of all, on the title -- the global title of the meeting, the delegation of China prefers the proposal put forward by Egypt, "Internet, an opportunity for all." We think that this topic is very closely linked to the international financial crisis we're going through at the moment. And in addition, it proves that the United Nations continue to work in order to promote the Internet. As we have said in February, the rights and principles for Internet is not an appropriate theme because the words "rights and principles" don't have an appropriate definition. As a meeting of the United Nations, it is not appropriate to adopt a theme which is not properly defined.

And on this matter, we suggest that we discuss the definition of "rights and principles" first of all, the workshop level.

Honorable Chairman, secondly, on the management of critical resources, the delegation of China feels that, first of all, the title of this theme should be "managing the critical Internet resources."

We feel that this title has been defined last year, after extensive discussions. And we think that this is a fairly neutral title. At the same time, it is a very sensitive theme, and we would suggest that we continue using this title this year.

Also, we would like to stress the fact that under the theme of "critical Internet resource management," we think that JPA is a very important theme and that it's not because we're going to reexamine JPA in September that we can't discuss it at the fourth session of the IGF. On the opposite, it's because we're going to do this in September that we should do it in IGF, too.

Thirdly, now, as to security, the delegation of China feels that this is a very important question. At the present time, security in the Internet, on the Internet and cybercrime is something that has become a worldwide enemy. And here we need to talk about regrouping the energies and resources of all parties concerned and to strengthen the international mechanism in order to promote security and stability for the Internet at the worldwide level.

We also think that there are some vital matters that have not been incorporated on this theme, for instance, how do we promote open source or intellectual property or traditional library resources. These are all very important questions in order to promote dissemination of knowledge.

We also think that this is a theme which should be discussed in the opening title.

We have also noted that some have talked about the URL blocking. On the URL blocking, this is a very sensitive matter.

In order to guarantee the security of states and to guarantee the interests of citizens to fight against terrorism and other crimes, all countries have the right to filter the contents of certain Internet sites. And I think that this is something that all countries are in the process of doing.

IGF as a meeting hosted, under the auspices of the United Nations, talks about URL blocking. Now, will this give an impression to the outside world that the United Nations are against content blocking? Are the U.N. against the practice of certain states filtering some Internet sites so that when we talk about "blocking," should the theme of blocking be incorporated in our IGF meeting? We have to be very careful about that.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

A second statement came in the afternoon session:

This afternoon, we are talking about the value of the IGF. And that's a very important question. The delegation of China has followed very carefully the previous statements made.

And now the delegation would like to make the following points. Firstly, we very much appreciate the secretariat for their excellent work. We agree in principle with what has been said by previous speakers on the specific aims of the IGF. We feel that the IGF has contributed a great deal in light of its historic mandate. But we have also noted the -- that the essence of IGF's work is establishing dialogue, exchanging points of view. But this is not enough to solve the problems. The real problem is that in the field of the Internet, there is a monopoly that exists. And we need to solve that problem. It's not by talking about principles merely that we can solve this problem.

We can also see this kind of discussion taking place. But it's not enough for developing countries who don't have enough resources and don't have the capacities to participate in this kind of dialogue without further commitments being made, which is why the points of view of developing countries, especially when it comes to Internet governance, their points of view are not sufficiently reflected in our discussions, which is why we don't agree that the IGF should continue its mandate after the five years are up.

So we repeat that the delegation of China does not agree with extending the mission of the IGF beyond the five years. We feel that after the five years are up, we would need to look at the results that have been achieved. And we need, then, to launch into an intergovernmental discussion.

I think that this should be a positive result of IGF's work.

The work of its next phase should be based on the results achieved in the previous years. We need to launch an intergovernmental discussion in order to solve the real problems that exist in this field of Internet governance.

Thank you.

The IGF Watch blog points out that China isn't alone in its frustration with the IGF and with ICANN. The EU's Viviane Reding proposed a new model of Internet governance last week in which ICANN would be reformed and overseen by a new "G12 for Internet Governance." But IGF Watch's Jeremy Malcolm thinks the debate may help to steer things in a more realistic direction:

True, it's just a shame that China had to be the stakeholder to make this bold point, since its motivations are transparently undemocratic - it was, for example, the only stakeholder at yesterday's meeting to openly oppose the inclusion of Internet rights and principles as theme for an IGF main session.

But from whichever source the realisation comes, given that the WSIS dream of a new consensual model of multi-stakeholder engagement in policy development has failed, it may be that we have to bite that bullet and fall back on the ugly alternative of agnonism - the recognition that the engagement of governments and civil society in global politics is inherently dialectical and conflictual, and that they will never truly deliberate as equals.

This might not even be such a bad thing. It need not in fact spell the death of the IGF, but rather its rebirth; as it would free the institution to make a clean break from its stifling Secretariat and the United Nations system generally. It could instead reconstitute itself as an independent private international institution much like ICANN itself, that would seek to participate on an equal footing in whatever institutions hold real power in Internet governance in the future, perhaps including Reding's new G-12 (or IG20, as Wolfgang Kleinwaechter had presaged it).

It's going to be an interesting year for Internet governance, and we are certain to hear a lot more from China. As it so happens, I'll be attending the next ICANN meeting in Sydney as well as the IGF meeting in Egypt as part of my research for my book.

November 21, 2005

As conference delegates returned home, the Tunisian government thugs came out in force. My friend and colleague Ben Walker, who stayed in Tunis an extra day along with some other people from the conference, has this chilling account of some Tunisian friends getting hauled off by police after taking Ben and friends to a club [emphasis added]:

It all culminated last night when me Nart, DJ spooky (will explain the
DJ spooky/Mulatu Astatke stuff later) , and my new favorite person in
the world Saafir, got three locals to take us to somewhere "fun and
happening." It was a discotheque (not that fun, certainly not
happening). We stayed maybe an hour and a half. On the way back we took
2 cabs. Saafir rode with our three guides and Nart and I and DJ Spooky
rode in the other cab. This is when the authorities pounced. I believe
they hoped we had separated. They pulled my cab over, and took our
drivers papers. We took a new cab back to the hotel, Nart had to
collect his luggage from my room and head to the airport. When Saafir
finally showed up he reported that his cab had taken him back to the
bar where we started at. For some reason the bouncer would not let the
three locals in, Saafir went in to use the bathroom (this is where the
police finally had their chance). When he comes out, he sees our frens
[sic] on the ground with their hands behind their backs. A police man comes
up to him and asks him where he is staying. They ask him if he was with
the three locals at the discotheque, Saafir says he does not know what
the police man is talking about. The police man tells Saafir to go to
his hotel and then they load the three locals in the car and take them
away!

What happened to the three Tunisians is unclear. We can only hope they were released quickly. This account reinforces concerns voiced by Tunisian democracy activists like Neila Charchour Hachicha (standing there
in the picture with me and Malaysian blogger Jeff Ooi), who are worried that the locals who interacted with summit participants will suffer consequences after the summit. Neila was not able to
attend WSIS. Since she couldn’t
get anywhere near the conference center, on Friday afternoon we met her for coffee in
another part of town. Neila’s website and blog are blocked by
Tunisian censors (see the ONI Tunisian filtering study for details on how
Tunisia censors the internet).

November 18, 2005

Here is a picture from the workshop on secure communications and anonymous blogging conducted by my colleague Ethan Zuckerman, Dmitri Vitaliev of Frontline Defenders, Wojtek Bogusz of the Tactical Technology Collaborative, and Nart Villeneuve of the Open Net Initiative. These guys are basically the dream geek team for free speech on line. They gave instructions in detail about how non-governmental organizations, human rights groups, and individuals trying to speak the truth under dangerous circumstances can secure their communications and data, and minimize the likelihood that people will get caught or arrested as a result of their work. The second part of the workshop was devoted to anonymous blogging.

November 17, 2005

Despite the odds, we managed to pull off our "Expression Under Repression" seminar here at the World Summit For Internet and Society, thanks to the strong spine of our sponsors, the Dutch NGO Hivos, who fended off a phalanx of plainclothes police who tried to shut us down. The goons finally backed off after the Dutch ambassador intervened and warned of a diplomatic incident. Before we began, uncertainty and rumor reigned about whether we’d be allowed to hold the event at all. On Wednesday, as I mentioned in a previous post, the Tunisian authorities told organizers that the seminar’s theme had nothing to do with the “ICT for Development” theme of the conference, and was thus inappropriate. On the morning of the seminar a sign outside the room said it was canceled. It was not included in the official program, and a rumor heard from delegates who visited the UNDP pavillion claimed that people who showed up would get arrested. Our colleagues have posted some eyewitness accounts of the action here.

Several Tunisian journalists in the audience challenged the validity of our subject matter, arguing that economic development and social stability are a priority over freedom of speech in poor nations. Hossein, Isaac and Taurai strongly disagreed. Taurai pointed out that if people aren’t free to speak out when officials are stealing their food and misappropriating resources, they’re more likely to remain poor. Hossein agreed that poverty in many parts of the world is as much a product of repression and corruption than anything else, and that greater freedom of speech can empower citizens to pull themselves out of poverty.

In about an hour from now (2pm local time), I'll be participating in in a seminar sponsored by the Dutch NGO Hivos titled Expression Under Repression. Click here for the schedule and location. There has been a lot of to-ing and fro-ing about whether we would be allowed to proceed. Yesterday our sponsors were told that the Tunisian authorities deemed our seminar's title to be incompatible with the conference's theme of ICT for Development, and that it might be cancelled. Then after some high-level negotiations the seminar was back on. Then this morning there was a sign outside our seminar room saying the event was cancelled. After more protests by our sponsors, the sign was removed.

If you are at WSIS and want to attend, the seminar room is very close to the Hivos stand in the ICT4Development area. Expo2 no.3103

I'll be giving a keynote. Below is what I have written up in preparation, and is roughly what I plan to say.

Meanwhile, please be sure to check out Ethan Zuckerman's excellent writeup of the alternative citizens' summit held by Tunisian democracy activists in downtown Tunis last night.

NOTE: We will be discussing the release of this report, among other things, at the "Expression Under Repression" seminar on Thursday afternoon at 2pm in Tunis. Click here for full details.

According to the report:

Our high-impact testing demonstrates that Tunisia uses the SmartFilter software to block sites on political opposition, criticism of the state’s human rights practices, independent news (particularly that aligned with dissident political groups), and non-governmental organizations focused on human rights.

On what Tunisia filters:

The state prevents access to the majority – in some cases, nearly all – of sites on topics such as anonymizers and circumvention tools, political opposition, human rights criticism of Tunisia’s practices, and pornography. Tunisia’s filtering system is concentrated and quite effective.

The report concludes:

In Tunisia, citizens may be theoretically free to receive and share information, but they are practically prevented from doing so on a number of vital topics by a state that combines sophisticated American technology, harsh laws, and informal pressures to limit access. Tunisia focuses its efforts on four areas: political opposition, criticism of the government’s human rights record, methods of circumventing filtering, and pornography. Unlike other states employing filtering software that ONI has studied, Tunisia actively disguises its blocking by presenting users with a fake error page instead of the “block page” offered by SmartFilter. This decreases the transparency of Tunisia’s filtering and prevents users from understanding the boundaries of blocked content. In sum, Tunisia maintains a focused, effective system of Internet control that blends multiple methods to make some on-line material simply unavailable from within its borders. The stark contrast between Tunisia’s censorship regime and the lofty goals of the World Summit on the Information Society call into question the United Nations decision to hold the summit in Tunis.

The president of the Swiss Confederation is speaking right now. He's just said he can't believe there are still UN members states that imprison citizens because of their opinons. He added that all people attending WSIS should be allowed to express their opinions freely and openly, clearly a reference to Tunisian interference in civil society's activities here. The comments were met with roaring applause from the civil society gallery.

The Tunisian government clearly does not agree. Ethan Zuckerman and I are participating tomorrow in a workshop called “Expression Under Repression.” We have heard that the Tunisian government has expressed the view that such a topic is not consistent with the conference theme of “ICT for Development.” Of course, we have a different view, and are looking forward to a our session tomorrow. Our colleague John Palfrey has an excellent post on the impact of internet censorship on people’s lives and why we should care. Tunisian democracy activist Neila Charchour Hachicha has a poem in protest of the situation.

A number of people here are also disappointed that the local government’s behavior is detracting from what should be the central focus of this meeting: how to use technology to improve the lives of the world’s underprivileged, and how to bridge the digital divide.

Anybody who hadn’t heard of ZTE, China’s second-largest telecoms equipment maker, before WSIS will know who they are by the time this confab is over. As a conference sponsor, their logo in on flags lining the street around the conference center. (See some recent news about ZTE here.) They and “China’s Cisco,” Huawei, have bigger, more elaborate booths than pretty much all other high-tech companies except maybe Microsoft.

The booths of these companies are full of delegates from Africa and the Middle East. I spent a little time chatting in Chinese with the guys at both booths. They’re both doing aggressive business in developing countries, helping to build telecoms and internet infrastructure. They point out that not only is their pricing competitive, but having cut their teeth in a country where peasant farmers make up the majority, they say they’re simply better at meeting the needs of developing countries than their Western competitors. They also take markets in poor nations more seriously.

A technology analyst once described Huawei to me as the “bottom feeders of the IT industry.” Others compare the global strategies of Huawei and ZTE to Chairman Mao’s strategy for communist takeover in 1949: “surround the cities from the countryside.” Given that the majority of the world’s population is either poor or in the countryside, it sounds like a sensible long-term strategy for come-from-behind challenger brands with ambitions of competing head-to-head with Cisco and Sun.

Unlike Western companies who tend to train locals and transfer a lot of technology (as Cisco did in China, making Huawei possible in the first place) Chinese companies minimize technology transfer to the locals they work with. Some NGO guys I was talking to who do a lot of IT work in Africa were saying they see Huawei and ZTE all over the place, but they say they’ve observed that both companies take great pains to compartmentalize what they do, and use their own engineers as much as possible, so that local employees won’t be able to turn around and start up a home-grown competitor. Unlike the Chinese, African governments are not demanding technology transfer in exchange for contracts.

The World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) will be held in Tunisia from 16th to 18th November 2005.
However: * A World Summit on the Information Society cannot have any concrete impact on the world community, if the main concern of such a Summit, which should be the human being, remains relegated to a simple accessory.
* Experience showed that concerning information issues, top level international meetings have never led to positive measures to make public's rights effective to get free access to information.
* Dictatorships similar to that of the Tunisian General Ben Ali, use the information's restrictions as a strategic pillar conscious that without restrictions their tyrannies would fail.
* Continuous impunity of tyrants, who violate on a daily basis the right of their people to freedom of expression, shows that apart NGO, it is illusory to count on "democratic" governments to support the right of free access to independent information.
* Finally, if there's a stake in the World Summit on the Information Society, it should not only be about reducing the "digital gap ", but it should be about reducing the evil that corrode peace in the world which is the "democratic gap".

Therefore throughout the WSIS and in order to get the attention of the Tunisian and the International public opinion to the cruel absence of freedom of expression and information in Tunisia, and the obvious incoherence between the principles of this world summit and its hosting by the violent and repressive Tunisian regime, a working group has been gathered under the sponsorship of the Tunisian Association for the promotion and defense of the Cyberspace (TAPD - Cyberspace) in order to launch the campaign:
"Freedom of Expression in Mourning!"

This campaign starts today, October 3, 2005, and will end with the closure of the World Summit on the Information Society.

Within the framework of this campaign, we will immediately start an initiative defined by the following actions:
* Since we are physically unable to demonstrate within Tunisian public spaces, we will use the internet to organize permanent virtual demonstrations in order to express our total disapproval with the Tunisian dictatorial regime.

Visit their website to view the online protest and contribute materials. The site is trilingual: French, Arabic and English. (Scroll down to the bottom for the English.) You are also invited to download a badge and link it to their site in support of the cause.

Experts on internet governance issues are worried that we may soon need to bid goodbye to the global internet as we've known it so far. Susan Crawford writes: "efforts are underway around the world to make it possible for network
providers to substitute their walled gardens for what we now think of
as our internet." Read her whole post.

Dana Blankenhorn at Moore's Lore also worries the internet could soon become fragmented. He shares with us a long analysis of the WSIS internet governance mess by Dr. Milton Mueller of Internet Governance. He argues that while the U.S. intends to be a champion of free speech and the preservation of the internet as we know and love it today, it has so badly mishandled the situation that the outcome is likely to be a lot worse than it could have been. Here are the concluding three paragraphs:

The US could have, and should have, privatized and internationalized
its oversight authority when it had a chance. It could have, and should
have, insisted on robust, democratic accountability mechanisms for
ICANN that would have pre-empted demands for centralized, old- style
inter-governmental oversight. It could have, and should have, insisted
on negotiating binding international agreements protecting the Internet
from arbitrary governmental interference and regulation. But it didn't.
And now the debate has devolved to a choice between "US control" versus
"UN control." If that is the choice, it is only a matter of time before
collective international control wins.

What seems to have been lost in the shuffle is the idea of
distributed, cooperative control that involves individuals, technical
and academic groups, Internet businesses and limited, lawful
interactions with governments. The idea that nation-states should not
have the ability to arbitrarily intervene in the Internet's operation
whenever they feel like it, but should be bound by clear, negotiated
constitutional principles, has been crowded out of the debate.

As the WSIS debate spills into the US media, do not permit the US
government to wrap itself up in the flag of Internet freedom. It is
reaping what it sowed. Its own special, extra-legal authority over
ICANN and the Internet has been the lightning rod for politicization.
Its insistence on retaining control, and the spillover from its
unilateralism in other areas such as the war in Iraq, has done
tremendous damage to its credibility. Now the Internet is paying the
price.

Blankenhorn then remarks:

Let me repeat something here. All the ITU or any international body
need do in order to fork the Internet is to do it. There is no army,
and no weapon, which can prevent the creation of new DNS regimes,
especially if national governments choose to force ISPs to point to
them.

The U.S. is allowing the Internet to be broken up into alternate,
regional, and national authorities, replicating the stupidity of the
old monopoly telecomm system, and preventing all but the elites of
various nations from reaching one another.

As Mueller notes, this did not have to happen. And once it happens, its effect cannot be reversed.